Oregon Tries Claiming Copyright Over Gov't Materials Again

from the and-again dept

You may recall last year that the state of Oregon tried to claim copyright in preventing others from republishing Oregon laws. Yes, that seems incredibly counterproductive, and eventually the state backed down. However, it looks like Oregon's Attorney General is now also claiming copyright on the Attorney General's Public Record and Public Meeting Manual. Yes. A government official claiming copyright over a document on the public record. Wonderful. Carl Malamud is trying to get the Attorney General to issue an opinion that such things will not be covered by copyright. But, again, can anyone provide any good reason why any government document should be covered by copyright?

Oregon's Attorney General is now also claiming copyright on the Attorney General's Public Record and Public Meeting Manual

Well Mike, i really can't give you a reason that any government document should be covered by copyright, but in this case, this document is specifically titled as a manual for Public records and meetings, so in order to be guidance on public issues, it should be readily available to the public without any sort of license.

Economic stimulus for Oregon! ---??

If they copyright it, then enact a law that require people to own and use it, our state's budget woes will only decrease.
At twenty five bucks a pop (http://www.doj.state.or.us/pdf/publications_orderform.pdf), I wish we could require people from all states and countries to buy one. Perhaps we should enlist some private sector advice ... maybe from the the RIAA or MPAA.

Actually there are some permits and licenses that that require you to have in your possession a copy of the official rules and regulations covering that activity. If they copyright it and then sell it for some exorbitant price to those wishing to engage in that activity thus limiting that activity.

Oregon Tries Claiming Copyright Over Gov't Materials Again

May be the Oregon State Attorney General Should read the Article About "Firebowls,copyright, and Crowdfunding.http://techdirt.com/articles/20091030/0412566732.shtml
and get a real understanding of that copyright is intended to protect the creative act and enable the person to make a profit not, cut out all competition...that's a monopoly and that is illegal on the federal level.
Just another power hungry individual that can't handle his own political problems with ease and grace. Like Nixon he may have the tenacity to eventually succeed, we can only hope not.

'Copyright Law'??

Ah,.. so I suppose the end result of this mindless farce will be that all laws become 'copyright' protected which will mean they never get out of some library dungeon and on-body will have a clue what copyright law actually means anyway,..
If you take that to the silliest extreme, the fist record of written laws dates back to Moses so is Israel gonna be in with a chance to sue the entire world for 'copyright infringement'??
Oh FFS!!!!!

Re: 'Copyright Law'??

Just a little note.

The first set of written laws was not those attributed to Moses but predated that known as the code of Hammurabi which Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy borrow from quite liberally. Something I'm sure some similar organization such as the MPAA or RIAA is surely interested in because there just must be 4000 years of royalities due!